Vivaelamor's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the in-narrative-form dept
This week's "favorites" post goes to regular commenter vivaelamor, who seems to have a way of providing logic to detailed comment threads that otherwise had started to spin out of control.
Picking favourite posts is harder than I thought it would be. First I went through all the weeks' posts and bookmarked the ones that I thought would be worth mentioning. I soon realised that I was marking nearly every story and needed to change tact. Due to this unforeseen effort I am calling fellow Techdirt commenters to form a union and demand Mike pay us, much like The Huffington Post should be paying its bloggers.
The second most important post of the week is a great case study and insight into a niche market where the CwF + RtB formula is working wonders. It scores bonus points for being written by Nina Paley, who continues to entertain us with topical cartoons. If they were available digitally then I might be looking forward to a Mimi and Eunice quilt.
Which barely segues into one of my favourite topics: logic and critical thinking. Argumentum ad temperantiam is Latin for argument to moderation and sounds way better because temperantiam sounds like temper tantrum and ends in rantiam. Julian Sanchez raises this logical fallacy in the context of zero sum economic theory.
The thing that annoys me most is intellectual property interfering with medicine at the expense of the poor. And sexism. OK, maybe I should just skip the Monty Python skit and say that amongst the things that annoy me most are stories like this one.
Now pretend that Neil Gaiman is a unicorn and that Techdirt is BoingBoing and call this heartwarming tale a chaser.
If that doesn't cheer you up then you may be glad to know that despite the efforts against Craigslist, prostitution hasn't gone away; it just moved to Facebook.
If you didn't take a cold shower after visiting Facebook then Mike's advice to the White House may do just as well, neatly packaged into two sub 2,500 character responses to ensure you don't accidentally overdose on common sense.
Even more sobering is the chilling insight into HBGary Federal and Bank of America's plot against Wikileaks and Glenn Greenwald. Worse still is the speculation that it may be part of a larger conspiracy.
In Soviet Russia government conspires against you. Wait, that joke doesn't work. Oh well, at least it parses as a somewhat accurate statement. Russia is winning the censorship race against the US. Don't they realise that China beat them both to it years ago?
Last and least is a dishonourable mention for ACS:Law, who are such failures they can't even get their cases thrown out.
The bonus round goes to an article I barely read. It was made worthy by Rose's fearless work against ignorance in the comment section, where she explains why you might look stupid if you compare copyright infringement to theft, but you look like you need a lecture on reality if you compare it to rape.
Re: As a victim...
The backlash this sort of thing tends to get by denying the existence of a problem, or saying that "there's no way to stop" it, is in some ways as worrying as the encroachment on freedom of speech. Bullying is a real issue. Bullying can be as subtle as eye-rolling. Focusing on the fact that eye-rolling can form part of bullying to attack bad law on the basis that eye-rolling is on its own a harmless gesture seems to highlight a worrying bias. There is nothing in the law to suggest that eye-rolling would be punished on its own. It may as well be argued that harassment laws will be used to punish door to door salesmen, wait, bad example.
I don't support the proposed laws. I do support admitting that bullying is a real thing that can be dealt with better if more people recognised it as a real thing and in the cases of school teachers and employers, did their jobs in challenging it. The solution to bullying can be as subtle and unobtrusive to society as a whole as bullying itself tends to be.
Re: sheep
That guy was self harming and suicidal. I guess that's something everyone should go through to 'build character', or however people want to label surviving an ordeal as proof the ordeal wasn't an issue worth preventing. I guess the families and friends of all the gay kids who did kill themselves can take solace in knowing their loss was part of a greater plan for the betterment of others.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agree/Disagree
Because becoming less ignorant is so painful that a landmine is an apt analogy. Oh no! My vocabulary lost its slurs in the enlightenment. I mean explosion.
Seriously though, you act like I'm judging you. Frankly, I couldn't care less what you say as long as you understand what you're saying. If I'm not in the target audience for what you're saying and you're confident that everyone who is thinks enough like you to avoid confusion then more power to you. I'm not out to label people as homophobic or anything else, I'm trying to get people to understand why what they say may give me cause for concern. Whether my concern means anything is their choice.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no 'equal but different' notion. I pointed out that having the same rights doesn't necessarily fulfil the needs of equality. It's not a complicated concept:
Traditional marriage = same rights
Civil partnerships = equal but different rights (what you seem to think I support)
Redefining traditional marriage = same AND equal rights (what I actually support)
The right to not be harassed doesn't come under gay rights, it comes under everyone's rights. It's just gay people are more likely to be harassed so the measures taken to enforce those rights may not be the same. Equality isn't about treating everyone the same, it's about treating them fairly.
I brought it up because of a commenter emphasising their opinion that everyone should have 'exactly the same rights, no more and no less', which on its own does nothing to ensure equality, especially when the existing rights are not equal. Further, in the context of their assertion that a measure to avoid to hardship is somehow a special privilege above those who aren't subject to that hardship it seemed kind of, you know, not very supportive. In fact it seemed kinda the opposite.
But hey, it seems that challenging apparent ignorance and potential subtle homophobia falls foul of homophobia phobia. I guess unless someone prefixes their comments by addressing me as a fag then anything I say in response will be considered too darn PC.
Re: Re: Weasel.
Mine is the abridged version.
Re: Re: Re:
Equal and same are quite distinct. Having the same rights implies that they are little different, which may not always be fair. Having equal rights implies fairness. If I have the same rights as someone with different circumstances then our rights may not be equal.
In the case of marriage, same sex couples have the same right to traditional marriage as everyone else. Civil partnerships don't provide the same right, yet they are more equal. Changing traditional marriage to include same sex couples is even more equal. It's a nit pick except when someone precludes 'the same' with 'exactly', in which case they are beyond dicey semantics. Fair rights may be the same for everyone, but that doesn't mean the same rights for everyone are always fair. Hence equal being a better word.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agree/Disagree
The issue isn't one of belief, but understanding. I never questioned your belief in gay rights. I still question the anonymous coward's belief, but was too busy responding to your indignation over my interpretation of what they said to see if they replied. I still don't see how what they said, taken in context of what they were replying to, can be seen in any way as supportive of gay rights. It'd be quite unlike, but not entirely unlike, a guy claiming that women's shelters were a special privilege and that women should have exactly the same rights, no more and no less, than men.
But of course, I'm just someone who likes typing pointlessly, not someone trying to explain an actual observation. At this point I give up either way, for today at least.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agree/Disagree
I said I'm not part of any community, not that I've not had contact (although that has been extremely minimal and limited to the past year). One of the benefits of being bisexual is you can stay closeted all your life with relatively minimal effort. Which was kind of my point.
"This idea that every/most homosexual or bisexual is some kind of lone wolf out there is just unbelievable."
Perhaps because you made it up?
"All I was saying was that with loose evidence in a trial where sexual orientation can become an issue, keep EVERYONE anonymous until verdict. Why you're getting all fucking bent out of shape is beyond me."
If that had been all you'd said then I wouldn't have had anything to say except 'that's a good idea'. I think it was the part where you claimed more hardship was suffered if the accused wasn't actually gay and used that as a reason behind your idea, implying that gay people suffering hardship wasn't reason enough.
"Oh, go screw yourself."
I so want to make an anal sex dildo joke here, but it might raise the tone too sharply for comfortable reading.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agree/Disagree
Why, did they elect me their leader?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agree/Disagree
Not really, as you point out in another post, single rights can usually be defined in a sufficiently inclusive way to ensure equality. However, absence of rights can also create inequality. A white cisgendered straight able bodied male in the UK is de facto privileged because he is unlikely to suffer from many problems that plague the rest of the population. Whether rape is illegal may not have an impact on his safety. Whether women get paid less may not impact his financial situation. Whether the bank has wheel chair access may not impact him. And so on. Thus, in this case, where sexual orientation is not likely to be an issue if you're heterosexual, while disclosure may be a right afforded to heterosexuals as well as gay people, it is only gay people who are likely to directly benefit. I'm all for straight people not wanting to be outed as straight. I'd be surprised if there are any though.
"How do they prove they are gay? Do you have to apply for Gay Status? Do you have to fuck in front of a judge?"
See above, re: disclosure of orientation. You shouldn't need to apply for gay status to be afforded the protection of your personal information, as the same right should be afforded to straight people, should they choose to use it.
The commenter who mentioned special privileges was implying that protection from disclosure of sexual orientation was a special gay privilege. If they'd argued that hey, perhaps no one should be outed as porn users regardless of sexual orientation, then that would make more sense.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agree/Disagree
Yay. You've started thinking and lo and behold, you're right. Where possible, rights should be equal by virtue of being the same. In the case of marriage, sameness is only an issue from a historical perspective (which is actually quite relevant as that is pretty much the definition of conservatism). Having the same rights does not mean those rights are equal. What you see as pointless semantics, I see as the actual reasoning people use against same sex marriage when they say that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. Civil partnerships with the same benefits offer more equality than having the same right to traditional marriage.
The issue also applies to new rights, after all, it was selective application of marriage that defined it as is considered traditional now. For example, I'm currently quite healthy and fit. Giving someone a right to the same healthcare I currently use, if that person is less fortunate, isn't equality.
"Are you saying that gay couples should have to prove they are gay in order to get the right to marry?"
Yes, I'm totally not backing down from... wait, I didn't say or imply that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agree/Disagree
If "I do not agree that gays should get any special priveleges." in response to the idea that outing people is wrong because it may cause hardship is clearly advocating gay rights then I'd hate to see the clearly homophobic position.
"I say it again: Pathetic. And quit being a jackass. And I'll add: get over yourself. You aren't some visionary freedom fighter educating us all - you are a whiny kid trying to start a fight so you can feel like an ideologue."
Yeah, well... you're a whiny kid with cooties! Long live Che Guevara!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agree/Disagree
Interpreted? It's commentary on the literal implications of what they actually said, prompted by their choice to emphasise the exactness of the rights gay people are entitled to and the irony of implying gay people are claiming special privileges when many people see heterosexuality to be a privilege in itself. Oh, and to adapt the tagline of a feminist blogger: I'm not outraged; I'm contemptuous.
"Is this another vague reference to me being some kind of a homophobic frat boy? Better look over your shoulder, goofball, there might be a whole world out to get you or something...."
Uh, no, it was a reference to asking if I needed a hug. I take it back, don't punch me! I need a hug! I'm just so emotionally vulnerable and everything I type is a result of secretly being a care-bear.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agree/Disagree
Everyone knows that when someone uses gay as a pejorative, they don't mean to insult gay people. It's not their fault that they're making a literal comparison to being gay, because, you know, they don't think about what they're saying. You can't blame people for not thinking. Apparently, you're not even allowed to point out their mistakes without being called a jackass.
"You are just looking for an argument by playing semantics."
Technically, I'm making an argument by commenting on semantics. I think the issue here is people disagreeing or believing the argument irrelevant. Personally, this seems as good a time as any to point out the fallacy of treating everyone the same under the guise of equality.
Re:
Just because some people have put me on a nitpicking roll, same rights != equal rights. But I agree with the sentiment, in an world without homophobia there would be no reason to treat any orientation as more sensitive information.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Agree/Disagree
Geez, make me explain it why don't you.
If marriage is legally defined as between a man and a woman then a same sex couple, though afforded exactly the same rights as all the legally married heterosexual couples, would not be allowed to marry. It was a commentary on how adding 'exactly' and 'no more and no less' doesn't necessarily make things any fairer.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Agree/Disagree
Seriously?!?! What the hell is your problem that you fail logic AND sarcasm at the same time!!?
Uh, to repeat, having exactly the same rights as straight people would mean that gay people could not get married to their same sex partners. Sorry for commenting on what the person actually said rather than divining what they meant by ignoring words like 'exactly' and 'no more and no less'.
"Seriously, do you need a hug or something?"
I'd say I need a punch, but I wouldn't want the attempt to emasculate you.
Re: Re: Re: Agree/Disagree
"My private life, is now on the Internet [..] I have had the worst few days of my life and have been contemplating all options including suicide."'
I am sorry to hear that and hope he gets through the ordeal OK. I am not sure what I would have to argue about with someone in such a situation.
Re: Re: Re: Agree/Disagree
'It's not the homosexual part of being falsely accused that creates extra hardship, it's the "falsely" part.'
What extra hardship does being falsely accused create? You discount your own examples when you admit that they don't apply to everyone, whether gay or not. I've known I'm gay for over a decade and I'm not part of a community. Many people who are part of gay communities don't even recognise bisexual as a valid orientation. Given that my family don't know that I'm bisexual, their ignorance may remain forever if I never have a relationship with a man, or even if I have a relationship with a trans woman. As a bisexual person myself I can assure you it would have been easy to stay wholly closeted for life.
"Now, if you're falsely accused of being homosexual, you obviously WON'T have that community to fall back on as you're not actually gay, while simultaneously facing potential hardship from your actual communities because of the undue revelation. It can, CAN, be harder."
Bullshit. Plain and simple. A gay person can suffer exactly as much hardship as a straight person from the same communities. Your logic is weak here and relies on your own supposition that heterosexuals are more likely to suffer hardship despite the fact that the only difference for gay people is your own idea of having other communities to turn to, which would of course preclude the idea of continuing to deny they are gay. Here's a novel idea, why don't falsely accused heterosexuals turn to gay communities for support? I hear some of them even include bisexuals or heterosexual transgendered people, so I don't see why they couldn't include cisgendered straight people who have been falsely accused.
"I'm pretty sure I made it clear in my original post that I don't think there's anything wrong with being gay"
If all that mattered about racism was that you denied you were racist then I'm pretty sure that racism would be solved in American politics by now. I'm glad that I live in an age where the majority of people don't seem to want to throw people in jail for being gay, much like I am glad I live in an age where women in my country are allowed to vote. However, just like the fight for woman's rights isn't just a history lesson, homophobia is something that exists even in the most subtle of forms. You're not Rick Perry by a long shot, which is a good thing, but not the end of it.
Re: Re: Agree/Disagree
I guess you don't support gay marriage then.
More comments from vivaelamor >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by vivaelamor.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt